During a Monday morning conference call, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden’s digital trove of leaked documents and materials was “secured by the relevant journalistic organizations prior to travel.”

Assange's comments could suggest that The Guardian and the Washington Post—where Snowden previously leaked information—are now in possession of his entire cache. Ars asked The Guardian and the Post to confirm this but did not receive an immediate reply.

“We are aware of where Mr. Snowden is,” he said. “He is in a safe place, and his spirits are high due to the bellicose threats coming from the US administration—we cannot go into details as this time.”

One reporter asked if WikiLeaks has obtained or was seeking to obtain Snowden’s materials.

“That’s a sourcing matter, so as a matter of policy we can't speak about it,” Assange said. “In relation to publishing such material, of course WikiLeaks is in the business of publishing documents that are suppressed by governments. WikiLeaks has no problems publishing materials [or such] documents.”

Bound for Ecuador via a safe path through Russia

Assange conducted the call from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (coincidentally, Snowden is known to have also applied for asylum with Ecuador). The WikiLeaks leader was measured and answered nearly every question deliberately and precisely, speaking in a slow monotone. Additional WikiLeaks staff and supporters were also involved with the call, including Kristinn Hrafnsson, an Iceland-based WikiLeaks spokesperson who approached his country’s government with an asylum application on Snowden’s behalf.

“Edward Snowden left Hong Kong on the 23rd of June bound for Ecuador via a safe path through Russia and other states,” Assange said. “Mr. Snowden has submitted an asylum application to Ecuador and possibly to other countries. Today we have seen a range of extreme bellicose statements from the US administration attempting to bully Russia and other nations from assisting in Mr. Snowden's asylum. Every person has the right to receive political asylum. It is counterproductive and unacceptable for the Obama administration to try and interfere with those rights.”

Assange argued that the prosecution of previous whistleblowers like Bradley Manning "is part of a pattern of misconduct, part of the Obama administration’s war on whistleblowers.”

“The Obama administration hopes to erect a new interpretation of law which defines journalistic sources as spies, and that is not acceptable,” he continued. “If such a precedent is permitted, it will result in the complete destruction of national security journalism within the United States. Already, serious national security journalists are speaking about how their government sources are too scared to reveal government misconduct in a national security sphere. That's an extremely serious matter. At the same as time the national security sector of the United States is increasing its share of the US tax burden and at the same time where unprecedented levels of criminality and abuse are being uncovered, it seeks to weaken the press, who is the only effective mechanism of bringing it to account.”

“I instructed the organization to assist Mr. Snowden”

During the question-and-answer period, BBC reporter Paul Adams challenged Assange. Adams noted the “obvious irony" of trying to cooperate with the Chinese and Russian authorities: "Given their problematic relationship with the values of privacy and freedom of speech that you hold dear—and if Edwards Snowden ends up in Ecuador—doesn’t the same irony pertain? I wonder: are you simply involving those countries because they're happy to stick one in the eye of the United States rather than upholding those values that you represent?"

Assange replied to start a quick back-and-forth:

“I simply do not see the irony. Mr. Snowden has revealed information about mass, unlawful spying which has affected every single one of us. The US administration has issued a series of bellicose, unilateral threats against him and against others who are attempting to support his rights. That is a very serious situation and any country that assists in upholding his rights must be applauded for doing so.”

“Even when they don’t uphold those rights for their own citizens?” Adams asked.

“That's another matter. In these cases, we do not criticize people for seeking refugee status in the United States despite its use of torture, drone strikes and executive kill lists and so on. No one is suggesting that countries like Ecuador are engaged in those types of abuse.”

Throughout the conversation, Assange answered nearly all the questions himself. He did however seem a bit testy at times—for instance, in this exchange with Jeanne Whalen of the Wall Street Journal:

“What advanced communications did you have with Russian officials to ensure Snowden could land there? Can you tell us who they are and how you got contact with them in the first place?"

“In relation to Mr. Snowden's safe passage to asylum, there was no advanced communication with Russian officials prior to his departure from Hong Kong,” Assange said.

"So he just landed there without the Russians knowing that he was coming?"

“I already answered the question.”

“So your answer to that was 'yes'?”

“My answer was what it was," Assange concluded.

Toward the end of the call, Larry Abramson, NPR's national security correspondent, asked Assange if he had been involved early on in Snowden's plight. “Did you have any contact with Snowden before he left the United States, and were you part of decision to go to Hong Kong?" For now, Assange left this detail to the imagination.

“I instructed the organization to assist Mr. Snowden, but I cannot go into further details at this stage,” he said.

In addition to the conference call, another new piece of Snowden information came to light this morning. According to the South China Morning Post, Snowden wanted a job with Booz Allen specifically so he could gather evidence on the NSA surveillance.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told SCMP on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Wishful thinking, I know, but I can't help but hope at some point the world's press, "mainstream" and off the beaten path alike, get back to discussing the huge ramifications of what Snowden released and away from the Snowden they currently believe is the star of his own TV drama.

Whatever side you fall on regarding whether he should have done what he did one fact is perfectly clear: The genie is out of the bottle. And that genie is affecting all of us.

Wishful thinking, I know, but I can't help but hope at some point the world's press, "mainstream" and off the beaten path alike, get back to discussing the huge ramifications of what Snowden released and away from the Snowden they currently believe is the star of his own TV drama.

Whatever side you fall on regarding whether he should have done what he did one fact is perfectly clear: The genie is out of the bottle. And that genie is affecting all of us.

I just hope this genie becomes a force for good, but my cynical side of me is expecting the US/UK to double down on their current policies instead of ever thinking for a moment about just what they are doing.

As long as Snowden is on the run like this we'll be focused on the drama of the chase rather than the information he brought forward. With that in mind, I wonder if it was actually a mistake to leave the country. I view what he did as an act of civil disobedience of high magnitude--if he had decided to face the music and given himself up for arrest, things might be different.

Figured the man behind the "NSA-Leakfest-gate" (because just calling the PRISM scandal is slightly misleading) wasn't stupid enough to telegraph all his movements to the US authorities and the media.

Unlike Julian, Edward Snowden strikes me as the person doesn't have an interest in basking in the limelight so he can get his name in the history books. That's more Julian Assange's thing [Turns out the self-righteous egomaniac from Australia is actually still useful for whistleblowers. Go figure.]

So while I'm annoyed that we have to see Assange being Snowden's advocate, I have to admit: the attention-whore provides an excellent diversion for whatever Snowden's actually doing.

I used to think high of the US constitution. It seems now to me that no one and nothing is above human power greed. It was about time Americans had to deal with the same shit everyone has had to deal with until now, lets see now how you respond to this.

Figured the man behind the "NSA-Leakfest-gate" (because just calling the PRISM scandal is slightly misleading) wasn't stupid enough to telegraph all his movements to the US authorities and the media.

Unlike Julian, Edward Snowden strikes me as the person doesn't have an interest in basking in the limelight so he can get his name in the history books. That's more Julian Assange's thing [Turns out the self-righteous egomaniac from Australia is actually still useful for whistleblowers. Go figure.]

So while I'm annoyed that we have to see Assange being Snowden's advocate, I have to admit: the attention-whore provides an excellent diversion for whatever Snowden's actually doing.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

The world will always need lightning rods, be them actual or political.

As long as Snowden is on the run like this we'll be focused on the drama of the chase rather than the information he brought forward. With that in mind, I wonder if it was actually a mistake to leave the country. I view what he did as an act of civil disobedience of high magnitude--if he had decided to face the music and given himself up for arrest, things might be different.

We need less drama and more facts.

Not only does he have to sacrifice his good life in US, but he has to subject himself to certain torture and life imprisonment?

No one is asking the question, or at least few are, of why the administration believes we need to dismantle the constitution to protect it. It's classic doublespeak. We need to dismantle the NSA and CIA in its present form and bring the world back to sanity. Spy all you like, but within the bounds of the constitution and the supposed moral code that democracies are supposed to embrace.

Julian Assange talks to the media bout Edward Snowden. So basically one douche bag that broke the law is talking to the press about another douche bag that broke the law. And the clueless tech hipsters will eat it all up and make these two ass-clowns cultural tech heroes. How pathetic all of this is.

Snowden's being charged with espionage (amongst other things). What the US government is doing is espionage. Yet one is getting chased after for breaking the law, the other one is somehow claiming it is being lawful.

Or to illustrate the irony further, an agency that is invading our privacy willy-nilly is now getting pissy about having its privacy invaded instead.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told SCMP on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Towards the end of the article, but for me this is the most serious of lines in the article. Perhaps naive, but I always pictured this as a crime of passion ; a sudden revelation follwed by some acts of panic to get the word out. This was a long-term pre-meditated effort.

As long as Snowden is on the run like this we'll be focused on the drama of the chase rather than the information he brought forward. With that in mind, I wonder if it was actually a mistake to leave the country. I view what he did as an act of civil disobedience of high magnitude--if he had decided to face the music and given himself up for arrest, things might be different.

We need less drama and more facts.

I've pondered that as well—is this whole "chase" merely a diversion perpetrated by the government in order to get people to pay attention to the man, rather than the facts. I'm not sure I've made up my mind on that one yet.

Yes, it's steering the discussion away from potentially unconstitutional laws that the United States government is engaging in. On the other hand, if Snwoden had stayed in the U.S. and was taken into custody the same day that the first leak took place, well, there'd be so much less drama to capture the public's attention. Certainly, the government would have done its best to smother the story or otherwise control the information. Instead, we have a tale that is, presumably, being woven by Snowden, Wikileaks and whatever other journalists out there who are assisting him—along with the U.S. government.

True, the government is doing what it can to control or misdirect...but with Snowden on the run, they can't control the narrative in its entirety.

Oh, F me -- Assange must be loving this. More time in the limelight for him.

Strawman/Redherring.

lol -- I wasn't trying to deflect anything away from Snowden, or Assange -- it was just the first thing that popped into my head. I believe Snowden is a hero, that Wikileaks is a great organization, and it's great that they are helping Edward get to a safe place.

Julian Assange talks to the media bout Edward Snowden. So basically one douche bag that broke the law is talking to the press about another douche bag that broke the law. And the clueless tech hipsters will eat it all up and make these two ass-clowns cultural tech heroes. How pathetic all of this is.

Are you sure you're on the right website and you didn't get lost here on the way to TMZ or some such?

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told SCMP on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Towards the end of the article, but for me this is the most serious of lines in the article. Perhaps naive, but I always pictured this as a crime of passion ; a sudden revelation follwed by some acts of panic to get the word out. This was a long-term pre-meditated effort.

It was pre-meditated. From a legal perspective, he should have never said that, no competent lawyer or legal team in the world would have let him say that he pre-meditated a crime.

As long as Snowden is on the run like this we'll be focused on the drama of the chase rather than the information he brought forward. With that in mind, I wonder if it was actually a mistake to leave the country. I view what he did as an act of civil disobedience of high magnitude--if he had decided to face the music and given himself up for arrest, things might be different.

We need less drama and more facts.

Not only does he have to sacrifice his good life in US, but he has to subject himself to certain torture and life imprisonment?

Citation needed. In my view, giving himself up with those risks in mind would've given the leak even more credit.

Look, I support what Snowden did. I've said as much. But frankly, I think his decision to run is actually distracting us from the issue at hand. It's clouding the facts with the drama of the chase, and the questioning of Snowden's motives because the first place he went was China.

The last time this issue came into the public eye was in 2006, when these programs didn't even have a warrant. The whistleblower, Thomas Tamm wasn't even criminally charged for the leak. The results were actual court oversight of the programs, including warrants, which is what got us to now.

Julian Assange talks to the media bout Edward Snowden. So basically one douche bag that broke the law is talking to the press about another douche bag that broke the law. And the clueless tech hipsters will eat it all up and make these two ass-clowns cultural tech heroes. How pathetic all of this is.

Are you sure you're on the right website and you didn't get lost here on the way to TMZ or some such?

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told SCMP on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Towards the end of the article, but for me this is the most serious of lines in the article. Perhaps naive, but I always pictured this as a crime of passion ; a sudden revelation follwed by some acts of panic to get the word out. This was a long-term pre-meditated effort.

It was pre-meditated. From a legal perspective, he should have never said that, no competent lawyer or legal team in the world would have let him say that he pre-meditated a crime.

...If that quote from a Chinese news article is accurate and in the proper context.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told SCMP on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Towards the end of the article, but for me this is the most serious of lines in the article. Perhaps naive, but I always pictured this as a crime of passion ; a sudden revelation follwed by some acts of panic to get the word out. This was a long-term pre-meditated effort.

It was pre-meditated. From a legal perspective, he should have never said that, no competent lawyer or legal team in the world would have let him say that he pre-meditated a crime.

...If that quote from a Chinese news article is accurate and in the proper context.

From a legal perspective; Its a statement of fact, its it's own context. That's what makes it so damaging from a legal perspective, its an admission of pre-meditation and opens the possibility to the prosecution to introduce that he was working on behalf of a foreign nation spying. Its one of the worse things he could have said.

so he got a job with a company specifically for the purpose of stealing information to leak to the press?

sounds like espionage to me.

right or wrong he went to a job, signed legal documents about confidentiality knowing he was looking for information to leak.

and people are calling him a hero? I felt a little bad for him thinking that he came across this information while working there, but he went there looking for the info.

I hope he gets arrested, and charged.and then i hope the patriot act gets repealed.

in that order.

Completely agree with that.

Two wrongs don't make a right.As far as Snowden goes:Ignoring charges like espionage/treason which I would consider overblown. That is certainly fraudulent behavior to knowingly sign contracts that you dont intend to uphold your end of. Although it does sound like intentional espionage.

As far as the government wrong goes: (Kind of rambling, but if someone is going to pick apart my reasons, I'd like to at least make clear where my reasoning and perspective is coming from)Personally, as a foreigner (Canadian), I'm actually the one who's job it is for NSA to spy on. Thats what the NSA/CIA/etc organizations do, they spy on people to find and stop "bad guys". Clearly, getting Google, Facebook, etc in on it makes it much easier for any government entity to spy provided that people who want to commit whatever world take over acts actually use such free public services. (My definition of "bad guys" and what they consider "bad guys" may be widely different, or at least more narrow and I dont want to necessarily call anyone NSA might be looking for to be a terrorist either.)

My understanding from all these articles that what the NSA has been doing has been legal. Even with valid (probably vague) warrants and such. Google has provided information after the government entity has provided a court order. They dont do a daily dump with an SQL query on the backend for "People who use the word jihad" whenever they feel like.

There are clearly wrongs happening when American citizens get hit by the dragnet (although if your on Tor, and they cant tell your an American and shouldn't be snooping, thats not really their fault. If movie bad guys know to use tools to make them anonymous, I would expect real bad guys would also) and if I took them at face value that they don't try to look at American data, then maybe they aren't doing anything wrong from a legal standpoint.

What would be right:I frankly think you guys need to fire say 95% of the twits currently elected who just blindly support the status quo and never actually represent what the people who elected them actually want. I doubt anyone actually voted for their senator, congressman or presidential candidate specifically because they wanted to be spied on, or to spy on everyone who uses Facebook. I'd love to see some of the more really anti-Land of the Free laws repealed, but as a foreigner, all I can do is tell my government to tell your government to go f*ck themselves and stop spying on me. (Since the current head of my government would prefer to keep his face firmly stuck on the POTUS' ass, that'll never happen but I can dream too.)